Throughout history, negotiation has been a powerful tool used by world leaders to avoid violence and solve conflict. When negotiation succeeds all parties can feel that that have achieved their goals and met their expectations, but when negotiations go awry countries and relationships can be damaged beyond repair. The Munich Agreement of 1938 is a primary example of this type of failure, which was one of the catalysts to the start World War II and Czechoslovakia’s loss of independence. The Czech people were greatly overlooked during this agreement process, which still in some instances affects the country today. The 1930s were a challenging time for Europe and the powers within it due to the aftermath of WWI and the worldwide economic depression. Meanwhile, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party were continuing their domination of Europe and threatening to invade Czechoslovakia, which many felt would most likely incite another World War. To prevent this England, France, Italy and Germany entered into an agreement, which would allow Germany to seize control of Sudetenland and is today known as the Munich Pact. Sudetenland had a large German population and its borders were in strategically strong areas for the German military. For negotiations to be successful there are many components that one must be aware of such as personalities of all parties, end goals of each person and the history from the country. England led the process with an appeasement policy as an attempt to mollify Hitler and the Nazi party and prevent war, which this pact did not. The Munich Pact is a perfect example of how negotiation can fail when all of the pieces do not fall correctly into place.
When first beginning the negotiation process it is important ...
... middle of paper ...
...ugh to Hitler by using self-control and quiet approach when Hitler lost his temper. In one of the earliest meetings Prime Minister Chamberlin was able to show restraint with Hitler and allowed the negotiation process to move forward in a positive way.
“By not growing defensive or ceasing to listen during Hitler’s tirades, Chamberlain showed the Fu ̈hrer that he was still focused on resolving the problem at hand and was not taking Hitler’s rants personally. By remaining in the negotiations after Hitler had adopted an aggressive and combative position, specifically Hitler’s intention to go to war over the Sudeten Crisis unless a suitable agreement was quickly reached, Chamberlain showed a willingness to ‘see the situation as the other side sees it, [which] as difficult as it may be, is one of the most important skills a negotiator can possess’” (Warshauer 255).
During the Peace Conference there was two themes that was very critical. The first is that each victorious European ally had betrayed the new diplomacy of President Woodrow Wilson and therefore deprived the postwar international order of its moral
However there was a major difference in the views of France and Britain towards appeasement policy and that was that Chamberlain saw appeasement as a bold and positive policy, born of military weakness, but sympathetic to German grievances, while the French saw appeasement as a negative and stoical policy, illustrating that all their effort own efforts to prevent a German revival had failed. It was at this point that the French realized all of their failures, and therefore obviously felt little or no sympathy towards German problems. Their main aim was to prevent war as long as possible and not to make Germany feel better. The thought of another war was unbearable for them and therefore the French officials based its strategy on defense and diplomacy.
Collective Security would have been a better option because even Chamberlain, a supporter of appeasement, knew that if it came down to it he would fight Germany. If he knew there was a possibility of having to fight Germany, using Collective Security to keep Hitler within his own country would have made him easier to
David Reynolds has written and enlightening book named “From Munich to Pearl Harbor” discussing three main objectives dealing with World War II. The first of the three objectives is to provide a detailed and clear narrative story from the years between Munich to Pearl Harbor. The second of the three purposes or objectives of the book is to analyze and show how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt led the American people into a new perspective on international relations that were different from anything Americans had known. The last of the three objectives of the book is to show the developments between the years of 1938 through 1941. Many of these developments were very important later for the foreign policy of the United States not only during the Second World War but also during the Cold War complications with Russia and today with President Bush’s war on terror currently taking place in Iraq.
... till evident in this directive when it says if necessary. Hitler delivered his speech for a last attempt at peace on July 19, but it did not work. One of his main goals for the speech was to disconnect the people of England from Churchill but this failed because of the manner in which he spoke about Churchill.
Hitler was very manipulative before he even took over as dictator, and even before he was announced the Chancellor of Germany. Hitler’s plan all along was to become the dictator of Germany, even before he was...
Appeasing Hitler was primarily done for one goal; to avoid war and the many terrible things that came along with it. When World War I finally ended in 1918, millions of lives and dollars were lost. As a result, discussing problems seemed to be in everyone’s best interest. No one should ever be blamed for not wanting war because it’s very serious and not something that should be dealt with lightly. With saying that, appeasement was simply a negotiation, a way to solve problems without fighting, and nobody had a way of knowing what Hitler planned to do in the future. As Mackenzie King stated “Hitler appeared to be ‘a man of deep sincerity and a genuine patriot” (King, 1937) meaning that he seemed like the type of person who could obey rules and negotiate his problems, without causing conflict. Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Great Britain once said, “How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is, that we should be digging t...
middle of paper ... ... It was easy for him to threaten, and hard for him to conciliate.” (pg. 216) Finally, Taylor explains, after Britain’s failure to help reach an agreement, the aggression dragged both France and Britain into war with Germany. Taylor’s perspective on the origins of the Second World War, although controversial, is not one so easily dismissed.
This enabled Hitler to rise to power in this country in the years after World War I and leading up to World War II. France and Britain still had the memory of World War I when Hitler started to rise to power and take over new lands. Because they did not want to enter another conflict with Germany France and Britain hoped that taking an approach of “appeasement” with Germany would prevent another World War. It was this philosophy of appeasement, which led them to sign the “Munich Agreement” in which France and Britain agreed to allow Germany to take over portions of Czechoslovakia. Those who Neville Chamberlin argued in defense of appeasement, “….if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted”(379). He clearly felt that the threat of Nazi Germany was not as serious as it would ultimately become. “As long as war has not begun, there is always hope that it may be prevented”(379). France and Britain hoped desperately that by appeasing Germany they could prevent a total war. However, by giving Germany land and power France and Britain strengthened Germany and weakened themselves for when they would eventually have to fight
The Olympic Games of Munich started like any other, the parade of nations, proud representatives filled with dreams of gold medals and strong finishes. A moment of glory and hopefully standing tall on the podium as their flag is raised. This is a time when nations come together in peace to show the power of human achievement through sport. It did not happen that way.
Germany and its citizens continued to be punished when the peace negotiations took place. The peace negotiations forced Germany to accept full responsibility for the war and required it to pay a large amount of money in reparations. These negotiations are important because the allied powers knew the requirements would be difficult for Germany to adhere to. It shows how even off the battle field the allied powers were determined to destroy Germany.
In conclusion, the policy of appeasement was described by some scholars as ineffective. The fact that the policy of appeasement failed to avert World War 2 is a direct justification that it was a wrong-headed policy. The policy allowed Germany to reconstruct its military slowly and eventually was prepared to go into war to defend its military triumph. Chamberlain was aware of Hitler’s ambitions, but thought that the best alternative to deal with his ambitions was negotiations. This was a misguided move which the world is able to learn from.
...en dealt with in a firm manor. Hitler was able to use his countries momentum and his negotiation skills to achieve what he wanted for Germany and made a deal he knew that he was not going to honor and eventually lead to WWII. Prime Minister Chamberlain also needed to be aware of possible deception that he was likely going to face with dealing with Germany. “When German troops invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1929, Hitler’s promise that Sudetenland was his ‘last territorial demand’ was revealed for the lie it has always been. At best Chamberlain’s summit diplomacy has bought Britain another 11 month to prepare for war at the considerable expense of Czechoslovakia’s freedom”(Rathbone 19). In fairness, Chamberlin had avoided war for a period of time, but the consequences were much greater in the sense that war was inevitable and his people’s lack of faith.
It has been almost a century since the first Paris Peace Conference was hold, but even until now, it is a popular yet also controversial event in the history of the world. The Paris Peace Conference took place in 1919 involving more than 1,000 representatives from over 30 nations. The results of the Conference are five treaties regarding terms that, according to the Conference, shall prevent any upcoming conflicts among nations. Although World War II started only after 15 years, nonetheless, the treaties did function as a buffer between countries. Although many resolutions were discussed, the negotiation of the Conference revolves around four main topics, reparation from the previous war losses or limitations on the main Central Power, Germany, self-recognition, President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, and the annexation of land.
Negotiations always occur between parties who believe that some benefit may come of purposeful discussion. The parties to a negotiation usually share an intention to reach an agreement. This is the touchstone to which any thinking of negotiations must refer. While there may be some reason to view negotiations as attempts by each party to get the better of the other, this particular type of adversarial negotiation is really just one of the options available. Among the beginning principles of a negotiation must be an acknowledgment that the parties to a negotiation have both individual and group interests that are partially shared and partially in conflict, though the parameters and proportions of these agreements and disagreements will never be thoroughly known; this acknowledgment identifies both the reason and the essential subject matter for reflection on a wide range of issues relevant to a negotiation. (Gregory Tropea, November 1996)